How do you remove a federal judge from office?

I don’t need to know, but some people might.

The election of 2010 is over, but the rumblings are still being felt.  In Oklahoma, people were concerned about the influence of alternate legal systems, so they put an issue on the ballot to prohibit judges from considering international law or Shariah (Muslim) law.  Normally this wouldn’t be a problem – our laws are our laws, right?  Well, yes, except that our judges have a disconcerting way of ignoring our laws in favor of laws that are not our laws.  Couldn’t happen here, you say.  Well, I say, consider the situation of our president wanting NASA to have as a top priority improving relations with the Muslim world, or the New Jersey judge who considered Shariah law in denying a woman’s request for a restraining order against her former husband.

So someone in Oklahoma, thinking that the best defense is a good offense, was able to put the issue on the state-wide ballot, where it won with 70% of the votes.  Smart people, those Oklahomans.  Sad that it’s necessary, but the citizens chose correctly.

Then, of course, the other shoe dropped.  Today, a federal judge blocked Oklahoma from enforcing the will of the people.  Seems a certain Muneer Awad argued that the law prohibits him from practicing his religion, which happens to be Islam, making him a Muslim.  Mr. Awad happens to be the state executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR.  Never heard of CAIR?  They believe in women wearing headscarves, even if they have to be added after the fact.

(photo from Little Green Footballs, at the linked page, originally from CAIR)

Sorry – I got off onto a tangent – or did I?  Isn’t freedom from headscarf painting one of the things that the state of Oklahoma was voting for, indirectly, when they asked judges not to use Shariah law?

Mr. Awad claims that the law would forbid him from practicing his religion, and so must be declared unconstitutional.  The judge agreed, at least temporarily.

I have come up with a solution that makes everybody happy.  Well, almost everybody.

If Mr. Awad wants to live in a place that practices Shariah law, including legal polygamy, chopping off a hand for theft, and skipping eating pork, then he has that right.  He can leave Oklahoma, and the United States, and go live in a  place where there is not freedom of speech, where non-Muslims have to pay a dhimmi tax.

But that’s not what he wants.  He wants us to change our laws to match what he believes, in opposition to 70% of the voters in Oklahoma.  And he found a federal judge to agree.

I’m not inciting an uprising.  I don’t want people hurt or killed.  On the other hand, I don’t want us all to live under Muslim law.  We (I would count myself among the 70% in Oklahoma) are stronger, and we have a responsibility to take care of the weaker (thirty percent of Oklahomans want Shariah law included when  judges decide?  Well, Obama did get elected somehow.).

But the 70% do not have an obligation to submit to the 30%, or to Mr. Awad, or to Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange.  We do not have an obligation to tear this country down.  We do have an obligation to build it up, to support America as a melting pot, and to be respectful, and to expect this same activity from others.

Sooner, rather than later.

Advertisements